One day at a time: The impact of daily satisfaction with spouse responses on pain, negative affect and catastrophizing among individuals with rheumatoid arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of research on pain catastrophizing has focused on its negative consequences for adjustment to chronic pain, with few investigations of factors that influence catastrophizing or its detrimental effects. Using a daily process methodology, the current study examined, first, the extent to which a supportive social environment plays a role in reduced catastrophizing, and second, the extent to which support might protect against the detrimental effects of catastrophizing on well-being. Sixty-nine married individuals with rheumatoid arthritis took part in an initial background interview, followed by twice daily telephone interviews (regarding pain intensity, negative affect, catastrophizing and satisfaction with spouse responses) for 1 week. Multi-level modeling indicated several pathways through which satisfaction with spouse responses disrupts the vicious cycle of pain, negative affect and catastrophizing. Consistent with past research, catastrophizing was associated with increases in pain and negative affect. However, when individuals reported increases in satisfaction with spouse responses they were less likely to experience increases in negative affect due to catastrophizing. Satisfaction with spouse responses also reduced the likelihood of feeling overwhelmed and helpless in dealing with daily pain. The relationship between pain and catastrophizing was attenuated in the context of increases in satisfaction with spouse responses. Negative affect was associated with increases in catastrophizing, but only when individuals reported decreases in satisfaction with spouse responses. Overall, findings were consistent with a model in which satisfaction with spouse responses serves as a coping resource, and suggests the importance of involving close others in treatments to reduce pain and catastrophizing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".